Girls Gone Wise | Mary Kassianhttp://girlsgonewise.com
Christian author Mary Kassian has some great biblical advice for women on faith, womanhood, dating, gender, marriage, and relationships.Sun, 08 Jan 2017 03:40:35 +0000en-UShourly1https://wordpress.org/?v=4.7http://www.girlsgonewise.comhttp://www.girlsgonewise.com/images/feed.pngGirls Gone Wise | Mary Kassianhttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/Subscribe with My Yahoo!Subscribe with FeedlySubscribe with BloglinesSubscribe with NetvibesSubscribe with PageflakesSubscribe with The Free DictionarySubscribe with Bitty BrowserSubscribe with Podcast ReadySubscribe with Daily RotationSubscribe with My AOLSubscribe with WikioSubscribe with Excite MIXSubscribe with GoogleSubscribe with NewsGatorSubscribe with WebwagSubscribe with Live.comSubscribe with PlusmoThanks so much for subscribing to
Mary Kassian's blog, Girls Gone Wise!http://girlsgonewise.com/historic-gathering-of-women-will-cry-out/Historic Gathering of Women will Cry Outhttp://feedproxy.google.com/~r/MaryKassian/~3/eYn1sc8WuPA/
Wed, 21 Sep 2016 04:00:52 +0000http://girlsgonewise.com/?p=9968

A historic prayer event will take place on Friday night during the 2016 True Woman conference in Indiannapolis, and YOU can be a part of it!

The conference is sold out with 7,000 women registered

Women are coming from all 50 states, and from countries all over the world. Some countries represented are Canada, Brazil, Bermuda, Austalia, Japan, Germany, Switzerland, Panama, South Africa, and more!

For the Friday night Cry Out Prayer Simulcast, over 1600 host site/locations/churches have registered.

Over 200,000 people represented

Right now, there is a great need for the Lord to work in our land. Throughout history He has used prayerful women to advance His purposes. Thousands of women will earnestly CRY OUT for such a time as this—at True Woman ’16. Will you be one?

True Woman ’16 Livestream

During the conference, the TrueWoman16.com home page will have the Livestream option for English or Spanish. You will need to supply an email address to access the stream.

I cannot imagine what it’s like to raise a child in an environment where he is discriminated against, and at greater risk for harm, merely because of his race or the color of his skin. But my mother can.

Suspicion and Discrimination

My parents immigrated to Canada in 1953. My dad was a refugee due to the ethnic cleansing of Germans from East Prussia. My mom, because of the expulsion of Germans from Poland. My parents fled Communist East Germany for the West. But there, they found that refugees were ostracized and treated as second-class citizens.

Hoping for a better life for their children, they immigrated to Canada. Poor, living in the slums, and unable to speak the language, they faced yet more suspicion and discrimination. In grade school, my brothers were mocked, bullied and repeatedly beat up because of our heritage. My oldest brother lost an eye when a neighborhood child shot him in the head at point-blank range with a bow-and-arrow for being a “bloody kraut.” The boy’s father sneered when my dad begged him for assistance with the medical bills.

Walking to school and through the neighborhood, my brothers learned to avoid certain houses, to keep their heads down, to avoid eye contact, to shrink back, to do nothing to draw attention to themselves, to remain quiet, unobtrusive and invisible—and above all, to remain acquiescent and passive when mocked, approached, or challenged. The consequence of looking at someone the wrong way or saying the wrong thing might have led to another beating, or worse. I cannot imagine the fear that my mother must have felt for her sons those first years in Canada.

Precious in God’s Sight

I am grateful that things slowly changed. And I thank God that what my family encountered on the street was not what we encountered at our church. There, we were warmly welcomed. Church folks helped pay the medical bills. They purchased the eye-glasses to shield and protect my brother’s missing eye. They provided rides to the doctor. They bought groceries and filled up our empty fridge. They passed along hand-me-down clothes and toys. They gave us a turkey for Christmas—and brightly wrapped presents. They helped us learn English. They helped my Dad find work.

In the community of believers, we found kindness, love and acceptance. Our heritage was no barrier. I can still picture the circle of children sitting cross-legged on the floor in the basement of that tiny church singing the Sunday School song that declared the truth: “Jesus loves the little children. Red and Yellow, Black and White, ALL are precious in His sight!”

Walk a Mile in His Shoes

My brothers’ childhood experience of discrimination pales in comparison to the stories I hear from friends around my kitchen table: Like the young man who witnessed his family murdered in the Rwandan genocide. Or the Coptic Christian couple who fled Egypt because they feared for their children’s lives. Or the numerous football players who’ve described what it’s like growing up in communities where racism and violence is rampant, and who regularly face suspicion and discrimination simply because they’re black.

I’ve listened to the slogans and impassioned arguments surrounding the recent police shootings of young black men, and the retaliatory slaying of white police officers. The slogan, “Black Lives Matter” can be taken to imply that other lives don’t. But the slogan “All Lives Matter” fails to recognize the reality of racially-based suspicion and discrimination. It fails to acknowledge what it’s like to be part of a group that’s discriminated against. It was the Cherokee tribe of Native Americans who said “Don’t judge a man until you have walked a mile in his shoes.”

I hope that the situation in our churches is radically different than out on the street. I hope that immigrants, refugees, people of color, and people of different nationalities are experiencing the same warmth, kindness and acceptance that we found in the community of believers. I pray that followers of Christ are genuinely living out the truth that Red, Yellow, Black and White–all are precious in His sight.

Does a husband have the authority to take his wife’s phone away, preventing her from making calls?

Does a husband have the authority to take his wife’s car keys? House keys?

Does a husband have the authority to physically prevent his wife from leaving the home?

Does a husband have the authority to physically force his wife to accompany him when he leaves the home?

Does a husband have the authority to lock his wife out of the house?

Does a husband have the authority to keep financial documents away from his wife?

Does a husband have the authority to take the wife’s personal property without consent?

These are not theoretical questions. They were posed to me by Ruth Tucker, a woman whose ex-husband claimed the Bible gave him the right to do these things. I share them here with her permission.

All of Ruth’s questions pertain to the issue of whether a husband has a right to force his wife to do something against her will. I believe that the Bible teaches that a husband’s position as head of the home does not give him the right to rule, but rather the responsibility to provide loving oversight. A husband is not imparted with privilege; he is entrusted with obligation—the obligation to love, cherish and shepherd, in emulation of Christ.

Though complementarians have consistently upheld this view, this truth deserves to be stated and restated with clarity: It is not the husband’s right to force or coerce his wife to submit. Submission is voluntary on a wife’s part, and her choice entirely.

A Radically Different View of Authority

Culture upholds authority as the right to rule and lord it over others, but Scripture paints a radically different picture about the true nature of authority. It teaches that:

Authority is not self-appointed; it’s delegated by God.

Authority is not personally owned; it merely stewards and manages that which belongs to God.

Authority is not about rights; it’s about responsibility.

Authority is not about seeking prominence; it’s about giving prominence.

Authority is not domineering and dictatorial; it’s humble and gentle.

Authority is not about getting; it’s about giving.

Authority is not about selfish gain; it’s about selfless sacrifice.

Every authority is accountable to a higher authority, and all are accountable to God the Father, who is the ultimate authority.

Godly authority is motivated by love and commitment. Godly authority builds up; it doesn’t tear down. Godly authority serves as a channel of God’s protection and blessing. Godly authority watches over the well-being of others. Godly authority works with them, and for their joy. Godly authority doesn’t glorify self; it glorifies God. It puts His character on display.

It Must Not Be Like That Among Us

So my answer to Ruth’s questions—and the answer I would expect from all my fellow complementarians—is a clear and resounding “no.”

No. A husband does not have the right to take his wife’s phone away, preventing her from making calls.

No. A husband does not have the right to take his wife’s car keys or house keys.

No. A husband does not have the right to physically prevent his wife from leaving the home.

No. A husband does not have the right to physically force his wife to accompany him when he leaves the home.

No. A husband does not have the right to lock his wife out of the house.

Jesus condemned a personal-power view of authority. He condemned men who exercised authority in a selfish, domineering manner. He said, “It must not be like that among you!” (Mark 10:43-45)

The misuse/abuse of authority is an abomination to God. He wants leaders to be shepherds after His own heart. (Jeremiah 23:2; Ezekiel 34:1-4; Zechariah 11:17). Some of the Bible’s most scathing condemnations are directed toward leaders who fail to exercise authority in a godly manner. The Lord’s anger burns hot against them (Zechariah 10:3).

According to the Bible, a wife’s submission is her choice alone. A husband does not have the right to force or coerce her to do things against her will. He does not have the right to domineer. He does not have the right to pull rank and use strong-arm tactics. He does not have the right to make his wife submit. No. According to the author of our faith, it must not be like that among us!

“Can we come together as a Christian community and recognize that the doctrine of male headship has sometimes been used as a cover to perpetrate violence against women?”—Ruth Tucker

The problem of violence against women is one that I care about deeply. I’ve helped battered women get out of abusive relationships. Their stories are heart-wrenching. Disturbing. Frightening. I think of the woman whose face and arms were shredded by flying glass when her enraged husband pulled the china cabinet down. Or the husband who rolled up and immobilized his wife in their living room area rug, and then proceeded to beat her with a baseball bat. I could tell you accounts of women who were burned, punched, kicked, locked up . . . the heinous acts make my blood boil.

So it was with great interest that I read Ruth Tucker’s latest book, Black and White Bible, Black and Blue Wife: My Story of Finding Hope after Domestic Abuse.

The title accurately portrays the two threads Ruth weaves together throughout. First, her personal story of domestic abuse, and second, her premise that the doctrine of male headship is to blame. The former is told for the purpose of proving the latter. According to Ruth, a Christian man who views the Bible in “black-and-white” terms—thinking that it puts a God-given head-of-the-home responsibility on his shoulders—is far more likely to be a wife-beater.

Ruth’s Story

Black and White Bible, Black and Blue Wife is a meandering narrative that is built on Ruth’s personal story, but moves back and forth fluidly between that story and her musings about abuse, legal issues, John Calvin’s theology, the ideas of various contemporary theologians, smatterings of the Bible, current events, and anecdotal accounts of other marriages. Ruth is an excellent writer, and does a masterful job of melding it all together.

Ruth and her future husband, whom I’ll call “Joe” (not his real name) meet at a Christian retreat. He’s tall, dark, handsome, and the only guy who can match Ruth in the “Quote-the-Bible-Verse” game.

Ruth is in graduate school. Though they’re roughly the same age, Joe hasn’t yet finished his bachelor’s degree. That’s because he was expelled from Wheaton College for cheating and for breaking into a faculty office in search of exam answers. He was subsequently expelled from Miami Christian College for some unknown reason. Wheaton College denied him re-admission.

Besides his run-ins with educators, Joe has a history with the law. He was arrested for voyeurism – for being a “peeping-tom.” This sexual misconduct, he claims, was resolved through the mandated counselling process.

Joe plans to be a pastor. Ruth knows that his religious views are “fundamentalist.” They have a heated pre-marital spat about the science of a literal six-day creation, but the issue of wifely obedience never comes up (p. 37).

Because of the glaring red flags, Ruth’s mother strongly opposes the marriage. But to no avail. Ruth is in love.

The First Decade

Two months into their marriage, Joe and Ruth have a heated argument about politics. Angry that she didn’t vote for the right candidate, he pushes her. Over the next few years, she sees that her prince charming has anger issues. He can be controlling, argumentative, given to moods and an ugly temper.

Joe finishes his undergrad degree at Shelton College and graduate studies at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School. He becomes the pastor of a small Bible church in Woodstock.

A few years later, a church elder and wife show up on Ruth’s doorstep with a local newspaper in hand. The paper reveals that Joe had been arrested for repeated theft of coffee and donut money at the county jail, where he had made weekly pastoral visits (p. 65). Joe hadn’t told Ruth about the arrest. She’s mortified.

To alleviate her “wretched shame,” Ruth pressures her husband to publically confess: “He agreed (on my insistence) to preach the following Sunday night a sermon of deep contrition from Psalm 51— a sermon I practically dictated to him.” (p. 65).

Joe was dismissed as pastor. However, Ruth’s “behind-the-scenes maneuvering” opened doors for him to minister part-time at a church in Crown Point, Indiana, and for further graduate studies at Grace Theological Seminary in Winona Lake, Indiana. (p. 57).

At this point, 9 years into their marriage, and staying home with a pre-schooler, Ruth decides it’s a good time to take in foster children. Thirteen-year-old Deana moves in. When Ruth finds out that Joe has repeatedly come into Deana’s room at night and sexually assaulted her, the rage she unleashes against him is “virulent and deep primal.” Yet she doesn’t report Joe to the authorities. She covers up the sexual abuse.

I did not report him because I knew he would be arrested, lose his job— our only income— and probably be imprisoned up to fifteen years. How would I manage with a two-year-old son? But mainly I didn’t report him because I wanted to shield myself from the humiliation of facing family, neighbors, church members. I didn’t report him for selfish reasons. I was protecting myself, and no one else. (p. 170).

Ten years into their marriage, Joe and Ruth move to Grand Rapids, where both of them begin to teach at Grand Rapids School of Bible and Music.

The Second Decade and on

Ruth is assigned to teach a course in women’s ministries, and begins “to read the Bible differently.” (p. 73). Her stance on women’s role in marriage and the church begins to change.

Ruth’s career takes off. Besides teaching courses at the Grand Rapids School of Bible and Music, she gets a prestigious job as visiting professor at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, flying from Grand Rapids to Chicago two to three days each week. Her summers are spent teaching cross-cultural courses at a Bible college in Kenya.

Ruth becomes a driving force in the Biblical Feminist movement of the 1980s, and a growing public figure in the Evangelical world. She becomes a spokesperson for the doctrine of egalitarianism, which claims that the theological/historical interpretation of the Bible is incorrect, and that the Bible doesn’t, in fact, teach male headship. This view, which was controversial at the time, becomes a flash-point in Ruth and Joe’s marriage . . . “the women’s issue itself became the catalyst for most of his frequent explosions.” (p. 73).

Joe’s moods grow increasingly volatile. He rips cabinet doors off hinges, puts a dent in a refrigerator door, and bloodies his knuckles. His violence turns on Ruth.

Nearly all of the domestic violence detailed in this book occurred in the years after we moved from Crown Point to Grand Rapids— in the years after I did not report my ex-husband’s sexual abuse of Deana. (pp. 138-139)

Joe’s career doesn’t go as well as Ruth’s. Six years into their teaching jobs, the president of the school corners Ruth to discuss her husband’s character. The president gently inquires whether Ruth had ever experienced Joe to be untrustworthy. Ruth lies. She tells the president that she has no idea what he is referring to, and that she regards her husband as completely trustworthy.

Ruth’s vote of confidence doesn’t help. Joe is demoted and then terminated. But he somehow manages to get an editorial position at Zondervan publishers, the company for whom Ruth is co-authoring a book, “Daughters of the Church.” Was this another case of Ruth’s “behind-the-scenes maneuvering”? She doesn’t say.

But she does note that her editor-husband got a hold of her manuscript and took exception to her making John Calvin out to be a feminist. She refused to make changes according to his dictates. (p.88). Zondervan becomes aware of their difficulties at home. For his interference in the publishing process, and perhaps for other reasons too, Joe is terminated from his job.

The arguments and violence escalate, as does Joe’s appetite for unspecified “sordid” sexual acts. Though Ruth gives in to her husband’s sexual demands, she feels raped and violated.

After one particularly ugly fight, in which Joe grabbed her and threw her to the floor, uttering threats, Ruth phones his parents. Joe’s parents are concerned, but the best advice his mom can come up with is for Ruth to stop writing about such controversial topics.

In 1987, after 19 years of marriage, Ruth seeks help from the courts and from her church to legally separate from her husband. Counselling is ineffective. Three years later Joe sues for divorce.

In 1994, still feeling guilt and remorse over not reporting her ex-husband’s sexual abuse of a minor, Ruth tries to track down Deana, who by that time would have been in her late twenties. Ruth wants to apologize, beg forgiveness, and maybe take Deana to Sears to buy her a new washer and dryer. But years earlier Deana’s car had slipped off a bridge in an ice storm. She died. There would be no reconciliation and no new appliances.

Does Male Headship Promote Abuse?

The fact that Ruth egregiously covered up the sexual abuse of a minor, as well as the fact that abuse tends to escalate when it is covered up, are topics that likely warrant some discussion. However, the premise of this book is that male headship promotes abuse, so Joe’s abusive behavior is what I’m going to focus on.

During his violent rages, my ex-husband often hurled biblical texts at me, as though the principal tenet of Scripture was, “Wives, submit to your husbands.” He spit the words out, repeatedly beating me over the head, at least figuratively, with his black-and-white Bible. His hitting and punching and slamming me against doors and furniture, however, were anything but figurative. Nor were his terror-loaded threats. (p. 14)

Joe repeatedly quoted Scripture to defend his headship and in an attempt to enforce Ruth’s unconditional obligation to submit— from “the kitchen to the bedroom.” (p. 22). So it comes as no surprise that Ruth blames the abuse on the doctrine of headship.

The difficulty with an emotionally-charged narrative style of argument is that it doesn’t lend itself well to objective analysis. Ruth’s experience and her conclusions are so tightly wound together that it’s difficult to separate the two and determine whether the one logically follows the other.

Furthermore, those who question the validity of her conclusion put themselves in the precarious position of being accused of questioning the validity of her experience, of being unsympathetic, of victim-blaming/shaming, or of condoning abuse. If I were a male who took exception to Ruth’s conclusion, I’d hesitate to even attempt a critique of her book.

But because I’m a woman, I believe I can ask the question: Was it truly the doctrine of male headship that caused Ruth to be abused? Or was something else to blame?

I’ve seen all sorts of doctrines twisted and used as justification to support sinful behavior: the doctrine of trust and generosity to bilk churchgoers out of money, the doctrine of truth-telling to justify slander, the doctrine of joy to justify adultery, the doctrine of abundance to justify greed. Jim Jones used the doctrine of social justice to force his followers to drink the kool-aid.

So do we toss these doctrines out the window because some people use them in a twisted and destructive manner? Or do we recognize that sinners will use whatever justification they can to excuse their sinful behavior.

Ruth’s experience led her to believe that the doctrine of headship promotes abuse. But my experience with abuse leads me to believe that women in egalitarian relationships are at a far higher risk than those with husbands who sense a responsibility to provide loving, protective headship. I could tell you dozens of heart-wrenching stories to persuade you that the further away a couple wanders from God’s pattern for marriage and the doctrine of loving male headship, the higher the risk of abuse.

So Ruth’s experience and my experience testify to the exact opposite conclusion. Which is why experience and emotions are an unreliable source for debating the veracity of a premise. It’s a sad day when reason is ignored and a conclusion accepted purely on the basis of who tells the best story and evokes the strongest emotion.

Coming Together as a Christian Community

In her book, Ruth throws down the gauntlet and asks the question, “Can we come together as a Christian community and recognize that the doctrine of male headship has sometimes been used as a cover to perpetrate violence against women?”

Hmm. The wording is somewhat leading. It implies that the doctrine of male headship is the primary “cover” that Christian men use to perpetrate violence against women, and implies that the “cover” is in fact the “cause.” Have I witnessed some men use the argument of wifely submission to justify abuse? Yes I have. It’s deplorable. But I’ve witnessed them use the cover of egalitarianism too. Abusive men use whatever cover they can to justify their violent sinful behavior.

A better question would be, “Can we come together as a Christian community—complementarians and egalitarians—and stand together against abuse?” It’s a question Wayne Grudem and I asked Catherine Clark Kroeger and the Council for Biblical Equality (CBE) board on behalf of the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood (CBMW) in the mid-nineties when I helped draft CBMW’s Statement against Abuse. Sadly, CBE’s answer at the time was a resounding no. CBE didn’t want CBMW to stand with them against abuse. I suspect they only wanted to blame CBMW for it.

Can Two Grandmas Come Together?

After all these years I would still love to see a greater “coming together as a Christian community” against abuse, so I’m going to finish up this review with a personal appeal to Ruth:

Ruth, we’ve stood on opposite sides of the woman’s issue for decades—since you first published on the topic in 1987 and me in 1990. I highly doubt whether CBE and CBMW would ever work together on this, though I can’t say for sure. At this point, my involvement with CBMW is peripheral at best.

So even though it’s unlikely that those organizations would come together to stand against abuse, it doesn’t prevent you and me from doing so. We could. You and me. Two Grandmas who love the Lord, love women, and deplore abuse. We could come together. We could do it for the sake of our daughters, grand-daughters, mothers, sisters, and friends.

I’ll fly anywhere in North America at my own expense to meet you. We’ll hash out a Ruth and Mary personal statement. I suspect we’ll really like each other . . . we’ll sip frothy cups of cappuccino, laugh and cry, share stories (and pictures of our grandbabies) and become friends. And perhaps that, in and of itself, will make a difference.

Tit-for-Tat is the name of a Laurel and Hardy slapstick comedy released in 1935. In the film, Stan & Ollie open a hardware shop right next to Charlie Hall’s grocery store. A misunderstanding occurs and Hall takes revenge on Stan & Ollie. Stan & Ollie retaliate. The back-and-forth antics start with silly attacks such as mashed potatoes in the face, eggs cracked on the head, and a curling iron pressed on the nose, and escalate in intensity until both the hardware shop and grocery store are on the verge of being demolished. The plot is simple: every attack by one party triggers a retaliatory attack by the other. The movie is funny. But sadly, this destructive type of tit-for-tat interaction characterizes many real-life relationships. We return insult for insult, slander for slander, hurt for hurt.

The phrase, tit-for-tat dates back to the 16th century. Tit is an old Middle English word meaning tug or jerk. Tat comes from the Middle English “tatele” meaning to prattle or tattle. The phrase refers to an exchange of insults or attacks involving retribution or retaliation. The British say tit for tat; the Dutch, dit vor dat; and the French, tant pour tant. The corresponding Hebrew phrase, “eye for eye, tooth for tooth” is based on an ancient law that dates back to the time of the patriarchs.

The Punishment Matches the Crime

The Lex Talionis law of retaliation was widespread throughout the Near East. It was a judicial principle that ensured that the punishment fit the crime. It protected the innocent by ensuring that justice was served, but also protected the guilty by ensuring that the punishment was not overly excessive. If a man poked out his neighbor’s eye, the eye of the offender would be the maximum penalty the neighbor could demand: “fracture for fracture, eye for eye, tooth for tooth.” (Lev. 24:19-20). Exodus 21:24-25 includes other examples: hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, and bruise for bruise.

The Lex Talionis law of justice is one that’s deeply engrained in the human spirit. It incorporates the concept that a crime deserves to be punished and that the punishment must match the crime. Just think of the cries of two feuding children. The “She hit me!” is almost inevitably followed by the defense, “He hit me first!”

Do you ever administer judgment according to the Lex Talionis law? Do you return sarcasm for sarcasm, slander for slander, criticism for criticism, or hurt for hurt? I must admit that I often do. When someone injures me, I feel justified in injuring that person in kind. In order to serve justice, I want to administer a tit for tat judgment on their crime.

Mercy Triumphs Over Judgement

The Lex Talionis law governed fair and just judgment, but there were additional concepts that God’s people were to take into consideration when deciding how to act towards an offender: mercy, compassion, and humility.

This is what the LORD Almighty says: “Administer true justice; show mercy and compassion to one another.” (Zecharaiah 7:9)

“And what does the LORD require of you? To act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God.” (Micah 6:8)

God’s mercy and compassion have always tempered his judgment. But the full extent of his mercy wasn’t revealed until He sent His Son to die for us. According to the Law, eternal death is what we deserve. But because of God’s great mercy, we are offered eternal life. This offer became possible through Jesus, who fulfilled all the demands of the Law. (Matthew 5:17-18) All fair and just penalties “eye for eye, tooth for tooth, and life for life” were paid on the cross with His holy blood. That’s why we who believe in Jesus are no longer under the letter of the Law. We’re free to live by a greater standard.

A Greater Standard

James 2:13 contains a warning as well as a promise. First, the warning:

Judgment without mercy will be shown to anyone who has not been merciful.

Let me repeat those words. Think about them. Let the meaning sink in: “Judgment without mercy will be shown to anyone who has not been merciful.”

I don’t know about you, but that warning strikes fear into my heart. I judge others whenever I treat them according to what I feel they deserve rather than according to the mercy God has shown me.

I need only think of how impatient I was with the girl who served me so slowly at the coffee shop this morning to see that I am guilty of judging. The thought makes me fall to my knees in shame. And that leads me to the second part of James 2:13, the promise:

Mercy triumphs over judgment!

The word “triumphs” is a unique word that means “to be superior; to boast in triumphant comparison with.” Because of Jesus, God’s mercy takes priority over his judgment. His mercy triumphs over my sin. And because I have received mercy, I have the capacity to extend mercy to those who least deserve it. Mercy can triumph over my tit-for-tat demand for justice. Instead of demanding justice, I can treat others as God has treated me.

Jesus instructed his disciples to respond mercifully to evil behavior rather than giving back tit-for-tat.

But I say to you who listen: Love your enemies, do what is good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you. (Luke 6:27–28, HCSB)

By nature, we want to return insult for insult, anger for anger, betrayal for betrayal, screaming for screaming, criticizing for criticizing, wound for wound. Thankfully, Christ can set us free from this habit. As we depend on him, He empowers us to respond to evil with good.

So the next time someone wounds you, don’t give back tit-for-tat. Focus on God’s mercy. Be merciful, just as your Father is merciful. (Luke 6:27-28, 36).